Subject: Re: [NNTP] LISTGROUP wording

From: [email-masked] (Peter Robinson)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 13:11:36 +0100

Clive D.W. Feather <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I've edited my master copy to add ranges to LISTGROUP

This is excellent, dealing with all the issues from the first attempt
that concerned me.

> and make the group rgument to GROUP optional.

You have done this without adding complexity to the document or
significantly lengthening it, so the complaints that it's 'feature
creep' or that it's too late to do this are unfounded IMHO.

On the other hand, requiring servers to store the group name (for GROUP
with no parameters or the long changed LISTGROUP response) is a real
issue.  I don't want to take a position on that.

Regards,

Peter

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:13:13 +0100

Peter Robinson said:
> issue.

The two need to be considered together, I think. If LISTGROUP remains
changed, the GROUP bit is not significant IMO.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[email-masked]>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[email-masked]>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |

---

From: [email-masked] (Peter Robinson)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 23:33:40 +0100

> changed, the GROUP bit is not significant IMO.

I agree.  And I really hope we don't have to backtrack on the LISTGROUP
response, since it's much neater the way we have it now.

Peter